You can believe in God and Jesus but also be a Satanist. Luciferians, for example, believe that Lucifer is actually the good one and that the bible is basically PR for an evil god. (I'm sure there are many different takes on luciferianism, but I'm going with what I remember when i was into Satanism. Things may have changed since then.).

If you read the Satanist Bible, you totally get that they are hedonists with Daddy issues. I always liked the hedonist part though I have a bit too much empathy to pull it off. The Daddy issues? I have enough daddy and Daddy issues to fuck around with it. In fact, I don't treat it as anything other than Christianity - if it is based on an existing religion, it is part of that religion dammit.

Is the Satanist bible related with the theistic side of satanism (like Luciferians), or the LaVey brand of satanism?

On that note I never noticed that Anton LaVey looked like the evil brother of Jean-Luc Picard._________________The Thirties dreamed white marble and slipstream chrome, immortal crystal and burnished bronze, but the rockets on the covers of the Gernsback pulps had fallen on London in the dead of night, screaming. - William Gibson, The Gernsback Continuum

LaVey wrote the Satanic Bible. What I remember is that t was more a "Be your own devil" book than one proclaiming the glory of Satan. Basically, the premise is that everyone should feel free to exercise power for themselves. I think there was some tuff about different types of demons, andthe different names commonly ascribed o the devil were iewed as different beings. The book is at least part joke - though of course thigs like this don't stay a joke forever.

I think there are some groups which are more theistic. The Luciferians think of Lucifer as a god of light, and I think there is some stuff about Lillith there too,and thy hav a canon of deities. It struck me as a hybrid of wicca and satanism. Michael Ford has books on it, probably more now I have stopped paying attention. I bet there are oodles of new books by other people and groups too, thanks to print on demand._________________::lesser crisis mode::

LaVey wrote the Satanic Bible. What I remember is that t was more a "Be your own devil" book than one proclaiming the glory of Satan. Basically, the premise is that everyone should feel free to exercise power for themselves. I think there was some tuff about different types of demons, andthe different names commonly ascribed o the devil were iewed as different beings. The book is at least part joke - though of course thigs like this don't stay a joke forever.

I think there are some groups which are more theistic. The Luciferians think of Lucifer as a god of light, and I think there is some stuff about Lillith there too,and thy hav a canon of deities. It struck me as a hybrid of wicca and satanism. Michael Ford has books on it, probably more now I have stopped paying attention. I bet there are oodles of new books by other people and groups too, thanks to print on demand._________________::lesser crisis mode::

....cripes, there is way more stuff out there now than I thought. Just look up "Left hand path" or luciferianism and you'll find some books on it.

For something more real, Elaine Pages as a book called "The History of Satan" that talks about Jewish politics back in the day and how the idea of satan evolved. Fascinating stuff, ad she's an actual historian. (I have been told she's very knowledgeable, though I recall she had a questionable theory about Christianity descending from Buddhism. I love the idea, but it doesn't appear to be true._________________::lesser crisis mode::

there is such a thing as a christian religion, revolving around the figure of christ, and that this religion is an important thing to you.

When you asked my what Christianity was, I told you that a Christian was a follower of Jesus, but that it's basically impossible to unpack any more detail, because Christianity is so varied. The position you state here is my position. If this was your initial position, we never would have disagreed.

mouse wrote:

especially if you believe in whatever a-theistic non-christ-centered, doctrinal nightmare sojobo apparently thinks is what is clearly meant by the generic term 'christian'.

Your understanding of my position is almost as strong as your understanding of Jewishness.

mouse wrote:

Quote:

The exact definition of Jewishness is not universally agreed upon—neither by religious scholars

The phrase in there, "exact definition of Jewishness" is actually a link to another page with more information about the matter. On that page, it states that the definition is exactly what everyone in the thread has been telling you the definition is. The lack of universal agreement is over details, such as mixed-descent individuals and which conversion practices are valid.

mouse wrote:

i'm saying, i've picked my definition. it appears to be consistent with what at least some jewish scholars say.

No. Some Jewish scholars disagree over fine points within the definition. They do not agree with your position that matrilineal descent from Jews does not make you Jewish. You are on your own with that one.

mouse wrote:

i drew a parallel between two groups of people using what sounded like identical criteria (descent) to put people into what is ultimately a problematic category (race) - both of whom insisted that the person in question had no say in the matter.

Alternately, you could describe it accurately, that you called someone a Nazi for using the Jewish definition of Jewish, a mistake you made because you didn't know the Jewish definition of Jewish.

mouse wrote:

ok, i shouldn't have called yrvani a nazi, however irritating she was. i would still like to see someone demonstrate how the logical basis for the comparison was faulty

I did this already. There isn't much demonstration to it, because there is simply no validity whatsoever in calling someone a Nazi for saying one thing that Nazis also said. There are no further steps, there simply is no "logical basis" to your claims.

mouse wrote:

and i'm interested, still, in how refusing to pack people into a race makes me hateful and ignorant and racist.

That you didn't know a definition made you ignorant. That you refuse to accept the definition after multiple people confirmed it was accurate makes you willfully ignorant. What made you hateful was that you were calling someone a Nazi. I don't think anyone is calling you racist.

mouse wrote:

but apparently you've decided i can't be allowed that; i have to act according to the way _you_ have decided i should act. i have to stay inside the box you have built for me, based on your standards, regardless of what i actually am.

I am very sorry that you feel oppressed by us telling you not to call people Nazis._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

On a practical and colloquial level (to avoid any more discussion of religious scholars), this sounds useless. You can never assume that anyone who claims to be a member of a religion holds any specific tenets of that religion?

There are no specific tenets of Christianity, other than "having to do with Christ", because the groups that have identified by that name have varied so considerably that there are no other universal tenets.

Dogen wrote:

I'm happy to hold ideas provisionally and change them as I learn new information, but there's no reason to use labels if they don't mean something.

If you ask a person what religion they are (if any), and they answer "Christian", they might not mean for the label to be useful. I think Snorri suggested earlier that if they want a discussion about their religion, they would elaborate, and there would be no need for assumptions.

Dogen wrote:

That would be like saying you can't assume what's inside a soup can by what's on the label outside.

I think it's more like saying you can't assume very much about the upcoming meal when someone invites you to lunch. There are a fair number of things that are extremely unlikely to be involved, but you can't positively assume anything but that it'll happen sometime around lunchtime.

Dogen wrote:

If someone tells me they're a Christian I assume they believe in God, that they believe Jesus was the son of God, and that they hold the Bible in some reverence. Because that's a pretty good average of teachings across all denominations.

Would you call it believing in God if they believed in more than one God? In an evil God? How about if they believed they were going to turn into Gods themselves, once they died, and rule over their own cosmos? Would you say someone believed Jesus was the Son of God if he merely a man possessed by the Spirit? What if he was just a wise man, period, not divine? What if they revere the Catholic Bible rather than the Protestant? Or vice versa, depending on what "Bible" you were assuming. The assumptions may be a kind of average, but they are still exclusionary._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

If a person believes in a personal God, but does not believe in the Trinity, it's hard to define that person as a Christian.

I do not buy this at all. I literally don't even know what it means to say that the Holy Spirit is a person, much less one of three persons who comprise one God. I have a feeling the majority of Christians would be in the same boat as me. I'm still calling them Christian._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

My ignorance on the matter also doesn't change the teachings of the Christian religion or its denominations. The acceptance of the existence of God is a central tenet in all of them, period. But then, that wasn't my point, was it? My point was that labels like "Christian" are only useful if they have a meaning.

On a more personal note, are you condescending about everything, or just religion? Far be it from me to mock anyone for being a know-it-all (that would be ironic), but I just wanted to find out if it was a general personality trait or if this topic is particularly important to you. If it's a general personality trait I'll save myself the grief and just ignore you.

It's a big deal. We don't really get to define it, individuals do. Like with gender, sexuality, stuff in general.

I'm sometimes a smug cunt, sometimes a decent peson, or at least I'd like to think so sometimes._________________\m/

Joined: 09 Jul 2006Posts: 9718Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:12 am Post subject:

Sojobo wrote:

If you ask a person what religion they are (if any), and they answer "Christian", they might not mean for the label to be useful. I think Snorri suggested earlier that if they want a discussion about their religion, they would elaborate, and there would be no need for assumptions.

I disagree. Every self identifying Christian I have met truly think that replying with "Christian" is sufficient to answering the question. I think this is because many think that the "cults" that aren't really Christian (according to them) would answer differently ie Mormon or Catholic. Baptists consider Lutherans Christian but do not consider Mormons Christian. And I have absolutely never heard of any Christian that believes in multiple gods - it is specifically forbidden in the religions tenets.

So, the person responding Christian absolutely think that answering Christian is both useful and specific (we must of course exclude people specifically dodging the question). I'd like to know what more specific answer a Christian could answer with. _________________Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael

Joined: 09 Jul 2006Posts: 9718Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:17 am Post subject:

Yrvani wrote:

It's a big deal. We don't really get to define it, individuals do. Like with gender, sexuality, stuff in general.

I don't know about other religions but in Christianity, individuals may define their relationship with God but committees define Christianity for the Church. _________________Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael

I disagree. Every self identifying Christian I have met truly think that replying with "Christian" is sufficient to answering the question.

In any context where there wasn't a very good reason to expect a serious religious or philosophical or epistemological conversation to happen, I would assume the question was intended shallowly, and so I would answer shallowly. "Christian" is a shallow answer.

Lasairfiona wrote:

I think this is because many think that the "cults" that aren't really Christian (according to them) would answer differently ie Mormon or Catholic. Baptists consider Lutherans Christian but do not consider Mormons Christian.

If a person tells me that they think Catholics are not Christians, I don't feel much need to take their definition seriously. The same goes for Mormons, too, just less strenuously. Baptists have no authority to mandate that people cannot identify themselves however they wish.

Lasairfiona wrote:

And I have absolutely never heard of any Christian that believes in multiple gods - it is specifically forbidden in the religions tenets.

Mormons believe that God the Father used to be in the same state we are now, with a God above him, and managed to be promoted to Godhood. They expect that they will, when their time comes, likewise be promoted to Godhood, and they will rule over their own world, which etc, etc.

The Gnostics, back in the very early days, believed that the Old Testament God was evil, and that Jesus was our connection to the greater Creator-God above the evil God. Also, quite a lot of early converts still believed that many gods existed, but that they were supposed to worship only YHWH/Jesus. The category is "henotheistic".

The different religions that make up Christianity have wildly differing tenets.

Lasairfiona wrote:

So, the person responding Christian absolutely think that answering Christian is both useful and specific

This is no doubt true in many cases. I did not mean to imply that every Christian understands how variable Christianity is. I was saying only that many people would answer "Christian" to keep that part of the conversation short, because they just don't want to get into it.

Lasairfiona wrote:

I'd like to know what more specific answer a Christian could answer with.

Joined: 09 Jul 2006Posts: 9718Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:49 am Post subject:

Yrvani wrote:

Lasairfiona wrote:

I don't know about other religions but in Christianity, individuals may define their relationship with God but committees define Christianity for the Church.

And when they are let rampant with all that stuff they like burning people as heretics. It's not the only solution nor the optimal one.

I agree with you. However, I stated the way it is, not the way it should be. Take it up with the committees. You can start with the Pope. _________________Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael

My disagreement with you is completely contained here. All of the persons in that list consider themselves Christian first, sect second. It is like genus Christian, species Southern Baptist. The Southern Baptist committee must confirm this too. Where it gets fuzzy is who gets to decide the genus - is it a sect that can self identify or must it be accepted by the group? Orthodox Catholics may identify as genus Christian and species Orthodox Catholic but the Baptists consider Orthodox Catholic to be genus Catholic and species Orthodox (Catholic is probably a bad example as it is a grey area. Mormon is pretty cut and dried genus Mormon).

Regardless of whether or not the Baptists have any right to decide the genus of a sect, they do so and lobby strenuously to make sure everyone defines genus the way they do.

I use Baptist as an example because that is what I am most familiar with. To make things more complicated, one could say that there are family Christian, genus Baptist, and species Second or Southern Baptist. Man, too bad I didn't start a bit higher up in the classification system but I am on a phone so I'm not fixing it now.

Btw, thanks for keeping my indigo formatting. _________________Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael